Глава XVII. «...небо придет на помощь твоему благочестию, которое спасет римскую империю от варварской дикости разбойников и от царствования недостойного узурпатора»

After defeat in the dispute over the Altar of Victory, the pagan opposition in the Roman Senate for five years did not resume attempts to restore the lost privileges to the old religion. The fight against paganism also faded into the background for Christians due to the confrontation between Ambrose and the Arians, the seizure of Italy by Maximus and the war between Theodosius and Maximus. Theodosius's policy towards paganism in the east, in general, did not go beyond the toleration of his predecessors. While providing obvious patronage to Christianity, Theodosius nevertheless did not take decisive measures against paganism. He probably knew about the dispute between Ambrose and Symmachus, but the sources do not contain data on the direct reaction of the East to the events in Milan and Rome. One can only assume that such a reaction was the law issued in May 385 (Code Theodosius XVI, 10, 9), which confirmed the edict of 381 prohibiting sacrifices related to predictions of the future, but contained harsher language and threatened violators with the death penalty. This law, according to researchers, gave the most zealous Christians a reason to launch a real attack on paganism. The Praetorian Prefect of the East Cynegius, who held this position from 384 to 388, led an unprecedented expedition to destroy pagan temples, supported by fanatical Christians and monks, who often acted on their own initiative. The famous orator Libanius in 388 addressed Theodosius a bright speech in defense of the churches, which makes it possible to clarify many details of these events. Here are some excerpts from it: “You did not give the order to close the churches, you did not prohibit access to them; He did not remove fire, incense, or ceremonies of worship with other incense from the churches and altars. But these monks, who are more voracious than elephants and with an endless series of cups harass those who accompany their drinking with songs, and meanwhile try to hide this intemperance of theirs by artificially induced pallor - despite the fact that the law remains in force, they rush to the churches, armed with stones and crowbars, others, for lack of tools, work with their hands and feet... They dare to do this in cities, but mostly in villages. And there are already many enemies in each, but this scattered population gathers to cause innumerable troubles, they demand from each other an account of their exploits, and it is considered a shame not to cause as much violence as possible. And so they sweep through the villages like stormy streams, carrying away villages and churches... ...These people... claim that they are fighting the churches, and yet this war serves as a source of income, since while some are attacking the churches, others are stealing from the poor their property - both savings from income from the land and their daily bread. Thus, the attackers leave with the goods looted from those they took by storm. And this is not enough for them, but they also appropriate the land for themselves, declaring that it is dedicated... Meanwhile, at the expense of other people’s misfortunes, those who, as they claim, please their god with poverty, are luxurious. If the ruined, having come to the city to the shepherd - this is how they call a person who is far from blameless - begin to cry, reporting about the violence to which they were subjected, this shepherd praises the offenders, and drives away the offended, considering them a gain simply because they did not suffer even more. Meanwhile, they are your subjects, sir, and people who are as much more useful than their offenders as hard-working people are more useful than parasites. The first resemble bees, the second drones. As soon as they hear that there is something to profit from in the village, it immediately turns out that they make sacrifices, and say inappropriate things, and a campaign is needed against them, and the “correctors” are right there - this is the name they apply to their, to put it mildly, robbery. Some, however, try to hide their work and deny their daring actions - if you call him a robber, he will be offended, but others are vain and proud of them, tell about them to those who do not know, and declare themselves worthy of honors. Meanwhile, what is this other than a war with farmers in peacetime?” (Speech XXX). Libanius quite convincingly shows that the fight against paganism was waged “from below” with the obvious connivance of the authorities. Outwardly, Theodosius remained faithful to the principle of religious tolerance: he appointed pagans to important government positions, churches continued to function, and pagan rituals were performed. Theodosius's tolerance towards paganism can be explained not so much by his reluctance to follow the models of his predecessors and not so much by the desire to avoid force in suppressing paganism, but by the political situation in the empire, which, despite all the emperor's favor towards Christianity, did not yet allow him to take decisive measures. The instability of the internal and external situation forced Theodosius to maneuver and wait for the right moment. The authorities' indulgence in atrocities against pagan temples satisfied Christians to a certain extent, and the pagans were glad of what they had left, as Libanius notes. Having secured a relatively lasting peace in the east with such a policy, Theodosius conducted a victorious campaign against Maximus and, as already noted, was in the west from 388 to 391. Here, too, his policy towards paganism at first did not go beyond the boundaries of religious tolerance and was subordinated to the general goal - to ensure political stability in the empire. Theodosius even provided patronage to the pagan aristocracy and granted honorary positions to its main representatives. Thus, Flavian in 389 received the post of treasurer and in 390 became praetorian prefect of Italy; Aurelius Victor in 388–389 was prefect of Rome; Symmachus was quickly pardoned for his support of Maximus, and in 391 he became consul; Albinus, who came from a respectable pagan family, was appointed prefect of the city from 389 to 391. This patronage undoubtedly gave rise to a new petition from the Roman Senate for the restoration of the Altar of Victory. Most likely this happened in the period from October to December 388, that is, immediately after the victory over Maximus, after which the emperor, apparently, should have listened favorably to the request of the pagans, and before Theodosius's clash with Ambrose over the unrest in Callinica. The literature seriously doubts the testimony of Pseudo-Prosper about the participation of Symmachus in this embassy. The source says that Symmachus's speech aroused such anger from the emperor that he ordered the speaker to be taken away on a peasant cart one hundred miles from Mediolanus. With all the ardor and temper of Theodosius, it is very difficult to believe that he could afford such treatment with the most prominent representative of the Roman aristocracy. In addition, the participation of Symmachus in this Senate embassy is also contradicted by the fact that the support of Maximus, to whom he addressed a vivid panegyric at the beginning of 388, for some time put him in a very difficult position in front of Theodosius. The orator managed to fully rehabilitate himself only by 390. There is hardly any doubt that Symmachus until this time could not give Theodosius a reason for suspicion of disloyalty and decide to lead a new delegation of the Senate. As before, Ambrose became aware of the petition of the pagans. A few years later, the bishop wrote the following about the fate of this petition: “Subsequently, I personally turned to the most merciful Emperor Theodosius and did not hesitate to speak to his face. Having received this kind of appeal from the Senate embassy, ​​although not the entire Senate made the request, he finally approved my explanation. And thus for several days I did not approach him, and he did not take it with annoyance, because I did not do this for my own benefit, and was not embarrassed to say in front of the king what would be useful to both himself and my soul” (Letter 57, 4). So, this time, thanks to the intervention of Ambrose, the Senate petition was rejected. In the summer of 389, Theodosius made a triumphal entry into Rome. Along with the traditional ceremonies for Roman emperors, Theodosius visited Christian basilicas and the graves of Christian martyrs. According to Augustine, the emperor ordered the pagan statues that adorned the city or were the works of famous masters to be preserved in Rome, and the rest to be destroyed. Under the influence of the Roman Bishop Siricius, a reform of the ancient calendar, which was based on a pagan cult, was carried out: on August 9, an edict was issued that established the norm of holidays in accordance with Christian rites. However, a decisive turn in Theodosius’s policy towards paganism occurred only at the beginning of 391. By this time, Theodosius’ position in the west had strengthened significantly, but Ambrose still played the main role here. It can hardly be considered a mere coincidence that the law against paganism was issued two months after Theodosius’s church repentance. The connection between these two events seems undeniable. The law of February 24, 391 was addressed to Albinus, prefect of Rome, and prohibited sacrifices, both public and private, closed access to churches, condemned the veneration of images created by human hands, and imposed a fine of 15 pounds of gold on those officials who evaded compliance with the law (Code Theodosius XVI, 10, 10). This edict went beyond all previous legislation against paganism and opened a new and final stage in the fight against it. A similar edict was addressed on June 16 of the same year to the prefect of Egypt and was a kind of sanction for new tyranny and excesses of Christians, who, under the leadership of the Alexandrian bishop Theophilus, plundered and destroyed the famous church of Serapis, which was not inferior in splendor to the church of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome and Olympian Zeus. This is how Theodoret describes this event: Theophilus “freed the city of Alexandria from the delusion of idols, for he not only destroyed the idolatrous churches to the ground, but also revealed to the seduced the tricks of the deceiving priests. Making statues of copper and wood that were empty inside and attaching their backs to the walls, they made secret passages in the walls. Then, penetrating through inaccessible places and hiding inside the statues, they ordered through them whatever they wanted, and those who listened, falling into deception, carried out the orders. The wisest bishop, during the destruction of the churches, revealed this to the deluded people. Entering the church of Serapis, and this was, according to some, the largest and most beautiful church on the whole earth, Theophilus saw a statue of extraordinary size, which frightened the inhabitants with its size. And besides its size, there was a false rumor that if anyone approached this statue, the earth would immediately shake and everything would be completely destroyed. But, considering such stories to be the ravings of drunken old women and despising the enormity of the statue as a soulless body, Theophilus ordered one holding an ax to quickly chop down Serapis. When he hit, everyone screamed, frightened by the rumor known to everyone. But Serapis, having received the blow, did not feel the pain, because he was made of wood, and did not even let out a voice, like a soulless body. As soon as his head was cut off, a whole herd of mice ran out from inside him: this means that the god of the Egyptians was the home of these animals. Finally, they cut him into small pieces, set them on fire, and dragged his head throughout the city. The worshipers of Serapis looked on and laughed at the weakness of the one they had previously worshiped. In this way, demonic churches were destroyed throughout the entire earth and seas”: (Ecclesiastical History V, 22). After establishing order in the west, Theodosius returned to Constantinople in the fall of 391. The western provinces formally remained under the rule of Valentinian II, who remained in the shadows all these years and was actually exiled to Gaul by Theodosius. The latter did not even give Valentinian the honor of accompanying him during his visit to Rome. Some historians have suggested, not without certain grounds, that Theodosius, going to the east, entrusted Ambrose with the leadership of the political affairs of Italy. There is no direct confirmation of this in the sources, but the course of events suggests that Ambrose at that time had some share of political responsibility. Thus, when a threat arose to Northern Italy due to the invasion of barbarians in Pannonia and the inhabitants of Mediolan were in panic, the prefect, together with the noble people of the city, turned to Ambrose with a request that he go to Gaul to Valentinian II in order to ensure peace for Italy. Probably, in Italy itself there were not enough troops to repel the barbarians, and Valentinian could not independently dispose of the troops. The position of the young emperor after the departure of Theodosius even worsened due to the constant guardianship of Arbogast, who held the post of chief of infantry and, apparently, was specially assigned to Valentinian II by Theodosius for control. Ambrose agreed to the mission proposed to him only out of urgent necessity, but extremely reluctantly, since he did not want to get involved between Valentinian II and Arbogast, probably still harboring a grudge against the first and not wanting to spoil relations with Theodosius because of the second. However, when Ambrose was ready to go on a trip, news suddenly arrived that Valentinian II himself was already on his way to Italy, and the embassy Ambrose was cancelled. As it turned out later, the rumor turned out to be false. Probably, Valentinian II really was going to Italy, but Arbogast prevented him due to some circumstances. In any case, Ambrose hints in his speech “On the Death of Valentinian,” which contains all the details of these events, that the desire of the young emperor to come to the aid of the Roman Empire was the reason for his death. Whether Valentinian II rebuffed the barbarians or whether one rumor about the emperor’s speech was enough for the barbarians to free the captives and retreat, as Ambrose testifies, in any case Valentinian did not reach Milan, and due to the elimination of the barbarian threat, Ambrose’s embassy to Gaul did not take place this time. Later, Valentinian learned about Ambrose's failed mission and wrote him a letter, sent in secret, in which he persuaded the bishop to come and directly asked him to act as an intercessor before Arbogast. Ambrose was Valentinian II's last hope to save his life. This is precisely what can explain the fact that the young emperor stubbornly wanted to be baptized by Bishop Mediolan, although he was surrounded by other priests. Undoubtedly, Valentinian hoped that the opportunity to baptize the emperor would speed up the arrival of Ambrose. However, the bishop, in his defense, says that Valentinian’s letters were intercepted, and only the last, secretly sent letter forced him to set off on his journey. But it was too late: on the way, crossing the Alps, Ambrose met the news of the death of Valentinian II, which happened on May 15, 392. Ambrose's position towards Valentinian II on the eve of his death does not seem entirely clear. The bishop certainly had sources of information about the tensions between Valentinian and Arbogast, whether the emperor's letters were or were not intercepted. However, he deliberately delayed his intervention under various pretexts and thus did not prevent the death of Valentinian. Moreover, Ambrose himself realized that he could correct the situation and prevent this death. Moreover, he even felt a certain responsibility for it, and it is no coincidence that in his speech “On the Death of Valentinian” the bishop devotes so much space to justifying his slowness. The question of the death of Valentinian II causes great controversy in the literature. It is known that Arbogast was a pagan (this is indicated by Ambrose and Peacock). This circumstance, apparently, played a decisive role in organizing a new, already 4th embassy of the pagan part of the Senate with the aim of restoring the lost privileges of the ancient religion. This was facilitated by the relative stability established by Theodosius in the empire, and the predicament of Valentinian II, and the absence of Ambrose, who, apparently, knew nothing about the new embassy. However, Valentinian, according to the testimony of the same Ambrose, “before the day of his death, refused privileges to the temples, despite pressure from those whom he could fear; a crowd of pagans was present, the Senate begged: he was not afraid of displeasing people, so that You alone might please You in Christ” (“On the Death of Valentinian,” 52). Some time after this, the emperor was found dead in his palace in Vienna. In sources of the 5th century. and in historical literature one can find the point of view that there was a conspiracy of pagans led by Arbogast and Eugenius, who took the throne, with the aim of overthrowing Valentinian P. This version has some basis, but at the same time raises serious doubts. The dissatisfaction of the pagans with Valentinian is too obvious to completely exclude it from the list of reasons for the death of the emperor. However, the closest Western sources not only contain no indication of a conspiracy, but also do not say anything definite as to whether Valentinian was killed or it was a suicide. Only Jerome definitely states that Valentinian was killed and his corpse was hanged to simulate suicide (Letter 40:15). Ambrose, who was closest to these events, was at first inclined to believe that the emperor was killed, and it is this opinion that can be seen in his speech “On the Death of Valentinian.” However, three years later, the bishop may have changed his point of view, judging by his statements in the speech “On the Death of Theodosius,” in which Ambrose does not find Valentinian a place in heaven along with Gratian. In addition, Ambrose, with the exception of the above quotation about pressure from the pagans, does not have a single hint of a conspiracy by the pagan party to overthrow the legitimate emperor. There can be little doubt that the existence of such a conspiracy would have been reflected in the Christian propaganda of the time. The version of the conspiracy and Eugene’s participation in it is also contradicted by the fact that the latter was proclaimed emperor only three months after the death of Valentinian II - on August 22, 392. In addition, Eugene, although unsteady, was a Christian (this is evidenced by Ambrose, Peacock, Sozomen and Philostorgius). It should also be taken into account that Eugene was too modest a figure to bet on in such a matter as the overthrow of the emperor: he was first a rhetorician and had a reputation as an eloquent speaker, and then served as head of the chancellery. Arbogast's motives in this case are not clear enough. It is clear that he exceeded the control functions that were assigned to him by Theodosius. It can be assumed that Arbogast, in eliminating Valentinian, acted at first to please Theodosius and had the goal of facilitating the establishment of his sole rule over the entire Roman Empire or the transfer of power over the western provinces to one of his sons. In the literature, an argument is made in favor of this that Arbogast, after the death of Valentinian II, minted coins with the names of Theodosius and Arcadia, but this fact is disputed by many. The change in Arbogast's initial intentions may have been facilitated by the fall of the praetorian prefect of the East, Tatian, a pagan by faith, eliminated by Theodosius in 392. The impetus for Arbogast to take decisive action against Valentinian could have been the emperor's refusal to grant the request of the pagans. Undoubtedly, the factor of pagan opposition played a certain role in these events, but Arbogast tried to convince his contemporaries and Theodosius himself that Valentinian committed suicide and that the pagan opposition had absolutely nothing to do with it. In general, mention of the 4th delegation of the Senate to Gaul to Valentinian II is contained only in Ambrose and Paulinus, who, by the way, confuses this delegation with the second. Perhaps the silence of other sources was a consequence of Arbogast’s propaganda and his desire to limit information about the last days of the emperor’s life to a minimum. Rufinus reports that priests were even specially sent to the east to Theodosius, who testified before him that Arbogast was not involved in the “villainous murder” (Ecclesiastical History II, 31). The nomination of Eugene was also connected with Arbogast: pagan sources (Evnapius, Zosimus) directly indicate that Arbogast made Eugene emperor against his will. As J. Matthews put it, Eugene presented a suitable civilized façade for the regime's barbaric warlord. Although Eugene's policy was dictated at first by Arbogast, its goal from the very beginning was not the restoration of paganism. First of all, the new rulers tried to find out the attitude of Theodosius to their actions. The latter initially behaved vaguely towards the new regime and gave Eugene’s embassy an evasive answer. The uncertainty of Theodosius's position undoubtedly affected Ambrose's behavior. The bishop did not respond to letters from Eugene, whom he had known even before the death of Valentinian. Ambrose explained the reason for his silence by foreseeing Eugene’s apostasy (Letter 57, 11). However, such an explanation does not honor Ambrose from the point of view of Christian norms: if he foresaw that Eugene would eventually succumb to the persuasion of the pagans, why did he, as a bishop and a true Christian, not save his lost or prone soul, thereby preventing a new restoration of paganism, against which he fought so bitterly? It must be assumed that in this case Ambrose was guided more by political considerations than by religious feelings. A response to Eugene, and even more so support for his regime, could have led Ambrose to confrontation with Theodosius. In addition, the patronage of the church to people directly or indirectly involved in the death of the legitimate emperor could discredit Ambrose in the eyes of believers, among whom there were probably all sorts of rumors about the death of Valentinian II. Ambrose was probably aware that his silence would inevitably push Eugene towards the pagans, but in this political situation he definitely relied on Theodosius, for he knew his piety well, and the example of Maximus clearly showed how unreliable and short-term usurpations of power. Theodosius, before the end of 392, demonstrated his position quite clearly. First of all, he refused Eugene's offer to share the consulate of 393 with him and instead accepted the consulate himself along with his military leader Abundantius. At the beginning of November 392, Theodosius showed that he had not changed his policy towards paganism: the subsequently famous law was issued, which actually abolished all pagan cults (Code of Theodosius XVI, 10, 12). The law applied to everyone without exception, prohibited any sacrifices (they were equated to lese majeste) and the veneration of Lares, geniuses and penates; condemned people who revered images created by human hands, ordered the confiscation of temples and places of pagan worship and their transfer to the fiscus; imposed fines for condoning violations, encouraged whistleblowers, and threatened officials who did not enforce the law. Thus, Theodosius banned all types of pagan religious practices. This edict is rightly called “the death certificate of paganism” (A. Donini) and “the end of the legal protection of the ancient religion” (W. Hyde). Essentially, with the publication of this law, the legislative struggle against paganism in the East ended. An additional act of Theodosius can be considered the prohibition in 393 of the Olympic Games, which by that time already had a history of more than a thousand years and were associated with pagan antiquity. After Theodosius, during the reign of his son Arcadius, the fight against paganism in the East was carried out by the state and the church using purely practical measures: by organizing missions for the purpose of converting pagans, forcibly destroying temples, etc. Of the laws issued after the death of Theodosius at the very end of the 4th century, noteworthy is the law on the complete abolition of all privileges for ministers of the pagan cult (Code of Theodosius XVI, 10, 14) of December 7, 396 and the law on the destruction of pagan temples in rural areas (Code of Theodosius XVI, 10, 16) of July 10, 399, but these laws can already be considered as additions to the mentioned law of 392 of Theodosius. In January 393, Theodosius proclaimed his second son Honorius Augustus (Arkady was proclaimed Augustus back in 383). This clearly indicated Theodosius's intention to make Honorius the ruler of the western provinces of the Roman Empire and deprived Eugenius of his last hope of recognition. In response to this, Eugene, in turn, did not recognize Honorius. At the beginning of his reign, Eugene tried to resist the increasing pressure on him from the pagans. Obviously, immediately after his proclamation as emperor, a new delegation of the Roman Senate was sent to him in Gaul with a request to return the Altar of Victory to the curia and return the privileges to the churches and their servants. Then Eugene refused the petitioners, for he was still in complete uncertainty regarding the intentions of Theodosius and the position of Ambrose. The second petition was sent to Eugenius, probably in December 392, when the law of Theodosius, which proscribed paganism, became known. Now the pagans were clearly making their last bet on Eugene and, apparently, offered him to occupy Italy, promising their support. Until now, the usurper remained in Gaul, perhaps hoping that at least for this reason, as had already happened with Maximus, Theodosius would eventually recognize him. It can be assumed that this time Eugene did not answer the pagan delegation with a direct refusal and postponed the final decision, since for him this was, in fact, the only chance to gain a foothold on the throne and resist Theodosius. When the eastern emperor at the beginning of 393 finally deprived Eugene of hope for recognition, the latter had no choice but to agree with the proposal of the pagans: in the spring of 393, the usurper crossed the Alps and was recognized in Rome, as evidenced by an inscription dated mid-April. Most likely, this campaign of Eugene turned out to be bloodless, since there was no legitimate emperor in the west at that moment, and the loyalty of the population towards Theodosius noticeably weakened during his absence, especially after the edicts against paganism. It was at this time that another, already the seventh, delegation was sent to Eugene with a request to restore the former status of the ancient religion. This time Eugene was forced to give in, although this was done in such a way as to gain support among the pagans, but at the same time not to alienate Christians: Eugene did not issue a special decree on the restoration of paganism, but only generously rewarded the petitioners themselves, that is, in fact, in a disguised form, he allocated subsidies for the pagan cult and partially returned what was lost to the temples. At the same time, funds were sent to Christian bishops in order to demonstrate complete religious tolerance. Probably at the same time, the Altar of Victory was finally restored in the Senate Curia, although there are no direct indications of this in the sources. Eugene's concessions to paganism caused a storm of indignation on the part of Ambrose, although, presumably, the bishop quite consciously foresaw this. Eugene’s political move with gifts to Christians was not successful: the astute bishop saw a cunning trick behind this, decisively rejected the gifts and did everything to deprive Eugene of all support from the church. When Eugenius intended to enter Milan at the end of the summer of 393, Ambrose defiantly left his bishopric and wrote a letter to the usurper from voluntary exile, which was a virtual excommunication (letter 57): “To the most merciful Emperor Eugene Ambrose Bishop. The reason for my departure was the fear of the Lord, to whom I used to direct, as far as I was able, all my actions and never turn my thoughts away from him or place any person higher than the grace of Christ. After all, I do not harm anyone if I prefer God to everyone, and, relying on Him, I am not afraid to tell you, emperors, what I feel according to my understanding. So, what I did not keep silent about before other emperors, I will not keep silent about before you, most gracious emperor. And in order to preserve the order of the matter, I will briefly tell you what led to this matter.” Next, Ambrose briefly outlines the history of previous petitions by the pagan part of the Senate to Valentinian II and Theodosius and speaks of his role in the fact that these petitions were rejected. After this, the Letter speaks directly about Eugene: “But when your grace took the helm of power into your hands, it became known that gifts were given to these people - remarkable in public affairs, but who worship paganism. And perhaps they can say, Emperor Augustus, that you did not return anything to the churches, but gave gifts to those who duly deserved it before you. However, we should constantly act out of fear of our God, which is often done in the name of freedom, not only by priests, but even by those who serve you in the army or are in large numbers in the provinces. When you became emperor, the ambassadors asked you to return what was lost to the churches; you didn't do it; others asked again, you resisted; and after that you considered that you should give gifts to those who asked. Although the power of the emperor is great, think, emperor, what is the power of God. He sees the hearts of everyone, He asks for the inner conscience, He knows all things before they happen, He knows what is happening in your chest. Don't you suffer when you are deceived and want to hide something from God? Didn't it get to you? Although they acted so persistently, was it not your duty, Emperor, for God - the true and supreme and living by his reverence for Him - to show even more persistent resistance and refuse what was a violation of the sacred law? Who is jealous because you gave something to others of your own free will? We are not examiners of your course of action, and we do not envy the privileges of others, but we are interpreters of the faith. How can you offer your gifts to Christ? Few will appreciate what you have done. Everything is according to your desire: what they did will be attributed to you, and what they did not do will be attributed to them. Although you are an emperor, you must be more subservient to God. How will the priests of Christ administer your gifts?” Next, Ambrose gives the usual historical parallel for his works, using a passage from the Book of Maccabees, followed by a phrase that quite clearly demonstrates the bishop’s position regarding the relationship of secular and ecclesiastical authority: “In any case, you, whom no one forces, no one has in his power, should have asked the priest for advice. Indeed, I resisted then,” continues Ambrose, “although I was the only one who resisted, but I was not the only one who wanted it, I was not the only one who advised it. For because I owe my words both to God and to all people, I understood that nothing else was allowed to me, nothing else was owed to me, except for me to take care of myself, because I could not humbly trust you. Indeed, I held back for a long time, hid my grief for a long time. I thought I shouldn't tell anyone anything. Now I no longer have to hide, and I am not free to remain silent. For the same reason, at the beginning of your reign, I did not answer when you wrote to me, because I foresaw that this would happen. Finally, when you demanded an answer to the letter, since I had not written an answer to it, I said: I believe this is the reason that he was forced to do this. However, when a reason arose for the fulfillment of my duty, I both wrote and asked for those who felt uneasy about themselves, so that I could show that regarding God I had a just fear, and that I valued no more flattery than my soul. In the same matters in which it is fitting to ask you, it is also my duty to show zeal for authority, as in Scripture: “To whom is honor, honor; to whom to give, to give." For since from the depths of my heart I rely on a private person, how can I not rely on the emperor? But you, who want to be relied on, are tormented by the fact that we rely on Him - whom you want to see as the creator of your power.” Like the letter excommunicating Theodosius, this letter to Eugene may, at first glance, seem rather mild. It is curious that Ambrose speaks here to Eugene as a Christian. Recognizing him as a Christian emperor gave the bishop a formal basis to make Eugene dependent on the church and punish him not as a usurper, for usurpations of power were common at that time, but as an apostate, which was a much more serious crime in the eyes of Christians. The bishop especially emphasizes that if Eugene lays claim to imperial power, he must be even more subordinate to God. And if he is subordinate to God, therefore, he must consult with a priest, who has a very special status and to whom, judging by the statements of Ambrose, the power of the emperor does not extend. This letter leaves Eugene no hope for forgiveness from Ambrose. The bishop does not even demand church repentance from him. Ambrose views Eugene's patronage of the pagans as a crime that the church does not forgive, and thus he deprives the usurper of his last hope for her support. Moreover, formally in the letter, Ambrose does not excommunicate Eugene from the church, but its very content gives reason to understand that excommunication is inevitable. Christian opposition to Eugene’s regime could not help but lead him in those conditions to the camp of paganism. He had no desire to become a new apostate, and he did not have a clear program for the restoration of paganism, like Julian. Patronage of the old religion was a necessary measure for Eugene. Apparently, he was aware that the time of paganism had already passed, and the example of Julian three decades ago demonstrated the inconsistency and futility of attempts to revive the past, but in the conditions of the boycott organized by Ambrose, and the preparations for war that had begun, carried out by Theodosius, he had no choice but to make the last bet on paganism. The central figure of the last pagan revival in the West was one of the leaders of the Senate opposition, Nicomachus Flavian. Under Eugenius, he retained the post of prefect of Italy, which he had received from Theodosius, and in 394 he became consul. His son, Nicomachus Flavian the Younger, served as prefect of Rome in 393–394. At the end of 393 and the beginning of 394, father and son launched active efforts to restore paganism in the west and especially in Rome. The possibility of reconstructing the pagan revival is provided by the very controversial source “Poem against the Pagans,” the name of the author of which has not reached us. This work is directed against an unknown prefect and consul who organized pagan rites and ceremonies in Rome. Some scholars identify this prefect with Gabinius Barbarius Pompeianus, who held this post in 408–409; others argue for Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, prefect of 384; but the most convincing are the arguments of those who identify this prefect with Nicomachus Flavian and date the document to 394 (for example, J. Matthews). Based on this source, the following picture emerges. Thanks to the active efforts of supporters of the ancient religion, of whom, as it turned out, there were still many in the West, pagan temples that had fallen into disrepair were restored, in particular, the Temple of Hercules in Ostia and the Temple of Venus in Rome, pagan cemeteries were put in order, pagan rituals, holidays, games, which had already begun to be forgotten, were revived, not only of the original Roman religion, but of Eastern cults. Thus, in accordance with the Roman calendar, the festivals of Attis and Cybele were held in March 394, the Megalesian Games in honor of Cybele were held in April, and the festivals of Flora were held in late April - early May. The Poem Against the Pagans colorfully describes the lavish pagan ceremonies that accompanied these celebrations. In addition to these measures, a cessation of all business was announced for three months in order to “cleanse” Rome and other cities in Italy. Judging by the sources, Eugene did not participate in the organization of these events, but provided them with patronage or, more accurately, treated them, as J. Matthews put it, “with embarrassed tolerance.” In fact, power was in the hands of Flavian and Arbogast. It should be noted that they not only carried out the measures described, but also ensured an uninterrupted supply of grain to Rome from Africa. The sources do not contain direct indications of the persecution of Christians, however, one can hardly doubt that such cases took place. Probably the result of this was the apostasy of some Christians, and in the literature one can find the opinion that Flavian launched an entire program of converting people from Christianity to paganism and put it into practice by distributing honors and positions to the apostates. There was also evasion of clerics from fulfilling their duties. Perhaps it was at this time that Ambrose wrote an encouraging letter to the Mediolan clergy, in which the bishop speaks of his sadness at the fact that the servants of God are shirking their duties and that they are visited by such thoughts: “... what is the advantage for me to remain among the clergy, to endure insults, to endure difficulties, as if my property could not support me or anything else?” (Letter 61, 1–2). And Peacock reports that Arbogast and Flavian, going to war with Theodosius and leaving Mediolan, threatened that if they returned from the war, they would set up a stable in the basilica of the Mediolan church, and the clergy would be given up as soldiers (Life of Ambrose, 31). Both Theodosius and Eugene openly prepared for war after the east rejected all attempts at a peaceful settlement. In the east, active propaganda was carried out in order to give the impending campaign against Eugene the character of a religious mission to establish “true piety” in the west. It is the religious motives of the war that prevail in the sources, and in literature the campaign of Theodosius against Eugene is sometimes called the “crusade of the Christian emperor.” Military actions were preceded by appropriate ideological and religious preparation. In Eugene’s camp, fortune-telling was carried out using the entrails of animals, abundant sacrifices were made, and consultations were held with oracles. Thus, one oracle said that the existence of Christianity would last a “great year,” that is, 365 years, and, according to his calculations, in 394, this period was just expiring. In the east, victory was prepared by long fasts and earnest prayers, in which the emperor himself participated. In addition, favorable predictions were received from Christian hermits. The enemy troops had clearly expressed symbols: in the legions of Theodosius there was a cross, and on the military banners of Eugene’s soldiers there were images of Hercules and Jupiter. Theodosius set out on a campaign in May 394, replenishing his army along the way with military contingents of the Danube barbarians. Eugenius's army set out from Mediolanus at the end of July (Ambrose says that he returned to Mediolanus around the Kalends of August, shortly after Eugenius left the city). The main focus of the defense was on strengthening the Alpine passes, and this was entrusted to Flavian the Elder. However, Fedosy, who by that time had solid military experience, managed to master them on the fly. Flavian took this failure personally and, in the spirit of ancient traditions, committed suicide, putting his comrades in an extremely difficult position Theodosius quickly moved towards Aquileia and about 18 kilometers from it in the valley of the Frigid River on September 5, 394 he encountered the enemy. The balance of forces before the decisive battle was not in favor of Theodosius. Church historians especially emphasize this fact, but it also speaks of how widespread the opposition to Theodosius was in the west. The first day of the battle did not bring victory to either side, although it gave certain strategic advantages to Eugene. Theodosius not only failed to achieve success, but also suffered heavy losses in the barbarian detachments, which, apparently, took the main blow. Theodosius' position became even more complicated when a large enemy detachment appeared in the rear of his army. Realizing the criticality of the situation, the famous commander and most Christian emperor was forced to resort to the help of gold, which often in history decided the outcome of battles more effectively than the valor of soldiers and the art of commanders. The commander of a large detachment, Arbitius, bribed by Theodosius, went over to the side of the eastern emperor and now fortune was on his side. Inspired, Theodosius moved his troops to attack early in the morning, taking Eugene's soldiers by surprise. Theodosius’s position was also favorable: the seasonal north wind blew his troops at the back and raised dust that blinded the enemy; In addition, the arrows and spears of Eugene’s warriors lost their strength due to the wind, or even did not reach the target at all. Under the powerful onslaught of Theodosius’s legions, Eugene’s soldiers wavered and began to surrender. The victory was won by Theodosius so quickly that Eugene, who was watching the progress of the battle from the hill, could not make out what was what because of the rising dust, and greeted the soldiers who ran up to him with a question: had they not brought the bound Theodosius with them, as they had been ordered? With the words “we did not bring him to you, but we will lead you to him,” the soldiers dragged Eugene from the chariot, tied him up and took him to Theodosius. The emperor reminded him of the crimes against Valentinian, of his lawless tyranny, of wars against legitimate authority, also laughed at the image of Hercules, on whom he had relied, and then pronounced the sentence of execution (Theodoret. Ecclesiastical history V, 24). Arbogast managed to escape from the battlefield, but after two days of useless wandering, he also committed suicide, not counting on the mercy of the winner. One of the first to whom Theodosius reported the victory was Ambrose of Milan. And the bishop immediately wrote a response full of delight and feeling: “You thought, most blessed emperor, as I learned from your majesty’s letter, that I was absent from the city of Milan for so long because I left your business entrusted to God. But during my absence I was not so ignorant or unaware of your virtues and merits as not to foresee that heaven would come to the aid of your piety, which would save the Roman Empire from the barbarous savagery of brigands and from the reign of an unworthy usurper. I immediately hastened to return after learning that the one whom I rightly considered it necessary to avoid was no longer there; After all, I did not leave the Mediolan church, entrusted to me by the will of God, but I avoided his presence, the one who himself became a participant in the sacrilege. So I returned about the Kalends of August, and have been here ever since. Here, August, your grace’s message found me. Thanks be to the Lord our God, who responded to your faith and piety and restored the appearance of ancient holiness, so that we see in our time what we are amazed at when reading Scripture: such a presence of divine help in battles that no mountain peaks will interfere with the passage of your path, nor the enemy’s weapons will present a significant obstacle. For these mercies, you think I should express gratitude to the Lord our God. Knowing your merits, I will do it willingly. Surely this sacrifice, which is offered on your behalf, will be pleasing to God. How much piety and faith there is in this! Other emperors, after a victory, first ordered the preparation of triumphal arches or other signs of triumph; your mercy is preparing a sacrifice to God and wants gratitude and donation to be conveyed to the Lord by the priest. Although I am not suitable for such a service and am not worthy of fulfilling such a will, I nevertheless describe what I did. I took the letter of your piety with me to the altar, I placed it on the altar, I carried it in my hand when I performed divine services, so that your faith spoke with my voice, and so that the letter of August played the role of the priest's offering. Verily, God is merciful to the Roman Empire, since He chose such a sovereign and father of sovereigns, whose virtue and power were established at such a triumphant height in the state and supported by such humility, which surpassed the virtues of emperors and the humility of priests. What can I want? What do you want? You have everything, so I will hasten to name the highest of your qualities: you are pious, emperor, and your mercy is great. However, I wish for you that your piety will grow more and more, since the Lord does not give anything more excellent; so that by your grace the Church of God will be grateful both for the peace and tranquility of the innocent, and also rejoice at the release of the guilty. Forgive especially those who have not committed any wrongdoing before. May the Lord preserve your mercy. Amen". (Letter 61). This letter illustrates not only the relationship between the bishop and the emperor, but also quite clearly shows the religious connotation of Theodosius’ victory over Eugene. Not only did Christian propaganda explain Theodosius’ victory with the help of God, but the emperor himself did not celebrate the triumph, but first of all prayed and prepared donations to the Lord. Behind this, the humanity that corresponded to such an understanding of victory was demonstrated, and this, undoubtedly, was the merit of Ambrose. Theodosius' measures in relation to Eugene's supporters turned out to be quite mild. Thus, Flavian the son was even given back his estates, and some people were given forgiveness on the condition that they became Christians. Although Theodosius removed the officials who had held positions under Eugenius, many of them were then rehired by Honorius, who probably carried out his father's dying wishes. Feeling strong support from the Christian church, and its most prominent representative Ambrose of Milan, Theodosius finally suppressed the last obvious pockets of paganism in the west. The anti-pagan legislation of Theodosius was now extended to this part of the empire, pagan rituals were prohibited and temples were closed, their property was confiscated, and the priests were deprived of all privileges. In addition to this, Prudentius and Zosimus cite the fact that Theodosius visited the Roman Senate after the victory over Eugene, during a meeting of which the emperor forced the senators to publicly renounce their faith in the old gods and accept faith in Christ. The very fact that Theodosius visited Rome during this period is seriously disputed in the literature, but Prudentius and Zosimus show how great the emperor’s desire was to convert Rome to Christianity. The further fate of the Victory Altar does not seem clear enough. If he was restored by Eugene, Theodosius certainly had to remove him from there. At the same time, Claudian, in verses written at the beginning of the 5th century, connects the name of Stilicho, regent of Honorius, with the statue of Victory located in the curia. Some scholars believe (Seek, Geffken, Palank, etc.) that the altar was restored to the curia for a short time in 400 as a result of a new petition of the Senate to Honorius in 399. Others suggest that in 402 Symmachus led another delegation of the Senate and was attacked in Prudentius's poem Against Symmachus. But still, a more fair opinion is that the statue of Victory remained in place all this time, and it was always only about the altar, which after 394 never returned to its original place. In any case, the statue of Victory could not remain in the Senate curia later than 408, when a decree was issued against all pagan statues (Code Theodosius XVI, 10, 19). Most likely, this statue was melted down during the capture of Rome by the Goths under the leadership of Alaric in 410. Thus, the last short-term restoration of paganism took place in a difficult political situation in which Eugene found himself by the will of fate. This restoration was not the implementation of a program, as it was under Julian, but was a forced measure caused by the boycott of Eugene’s regime by the Christian church and the hostility of the government of Theodosius. The restoration of paganism showed that the old religion even at the end of the 4th century. still possessed a certain power and had adherents in the widest strata of Roman society. However, the social base of Christianity was undoubtedly wider by this time, and the strength of the church’s organization made it an attractive ally of the state, which saw in it its support in the conditions of the impending crisis. It was political considerations that pushed Theodosius to war with Eugene, but this war took on a clear tone of armed struggle between paganism and Christianity. Theodosius’s victory in this war was not accidental: paganism, with all the nostalgia for it among the “natural” Romans, had already lost its viability as a religion, as an ideology, and as a political force. The apparent popularity of the ancient religion was noticeably inferior in comparison with Christianity, which had already penetrated by the end of the 4th century. in all spheres of life of Roman society. The political sympathies of the Roman Empire were on the side of the religion of Christ, and this was the most important factor in victory. The victory of Theodosius over Eugene meant the final political victory of Christianity. Paganism since the end of the 4th century. loses its last claims to the role of state religion and pagan reaction from now on is no longer in connection with politics. Christianity becomes the only official religion of the Roman Empire, not tolerating any other cults. But it should be noted that Christianity did not become the state religion in the pagan sense, especially in the West. With the end of the reign of Theodosius, the process begun by Constantine is basically completed. The Christianization of Roman society has not yet been completed completely, but now, under the auspices of the state, it is carried out on the basis of laws, mainly by violent methods. The blow dealt by Theodosius to paganism forever deprived the ancient religion of the possibility of a new revival. As N.F. Chernyavsky noted, “Theodosius killed the vital force of paganism, signed its death sentence, giving time to carry it out... Theodosius’ measures brought down paganism from the height of a mass phenomenon to the level of an isolated exception.” However, this did not mean that paganism immediately left the historical arena. As a worldview and religion, it continued to exist for a long time both among the lower classes and among the educated. In 399, Honorius, under the influence of Stilicho, issued two decrees that protected the inviolability of pagan temples as architectural monuments, and in 408, during the siege of Rome by Alaric, pagan sacrifices were still performed in the eternal city. At the beginning of the 5th century. the Christian poet Prudentia still considered himself obliged to combat the influence of Symmachus in the cultural circles of the Romans, and Augustine responded with his treatise "On the City of God" to the accusations of the pagans that the great social and military upheavals of the time were caused by the abolition of ancient cults and the victory of Christianity. For the same purpose, 7 books “Histories against the pagans” by the Christian historian Orosius were written. Only 30 years after the law that finally abolished the ancient religion, Theodosius II found grounds to claim that there were no pagans left in his state (Code of Theodosius XVI, 10, 22), but in fact, pagan cults continued to exist for a long time, especially in rural areas. Even in the 6th century. John of Ephesus prided himself on his cruelty and determination in eradicating the pagan beliefs that persisted not only in remote areas, but also among certain sections of the senators and intelligentsia. The defeat of paganism at the end of the 4th century. rightly associated with the withering away at the same time of the old way of life in the late antique economy. Although the connection between economics and religion seems to be very relative, in this case there was simply a striking coincidence: after the victory of Christianity over paganism in the West, the crisis of the empire became irreversible, and no attempts by the emperors of the 5th century. no longer able to prevent the collapse of the ancient world. The old religion perished along with the old empire; the new religion won before the old world perished, but in its depths it was preparing new orders, a new way of life and thoughts.